State of Punjab vs Hardeep Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—The two appeals and one revision petition detailed as above have been brought against two judgments of acquittal of the same date passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Though, they have been passed in two different cases, yet, those two cases arose out of a common F.I.R. bearing No. 17 dated 11.3.1997 of Police Station, Kalanaur. They related to the same occurrence and the cases are based on cross versions of the occurrence. For the facility of appreciation of the circumstances of the case, the two appeals and the revision petition have been heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

The two versions of the occurrence have to be first noticed. In one case, Gurdeep Kaur is the complainant. She has stated that she has been married with Mohan Singh, injured. She has stated that she has three sons and three daughters out of whom Lakhwinder Singh, her son is the eldest. On 11.3.1997, at about 8.00 A.M., Gurdeep Kaur was returning home after milching her cattle. On the way, she saw her son Lakhwinder Singh engaged in an argument with accused Lakha Singh. Lakha Singh was speaking about the false promises made by Badal government of waiving the tube-well electricity consumption charges. Lakhwinder Singh did not relish this comment of Lakha Singh. He protested to Lakha Singh in this regard. Lakha Singh gave him a slap, on receipt of which Lakhwinder Singh ran away from there towards his house after declaring that he would teach a lesson to Lakha Singh. Lakhwinder Singh reached home. However, in the meanwhile, Lakha Singh armed with 12 bore rifle, Janakvir Singh and Hardev Singh, armed with kirpans, Karanvir Singh and Ajit Singh, armed with dangs came to the house of Mohan Singh. Hardeep Singh was also with them. He was not armed with any weapon. The said Hardeep Singh raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Mohan Singh and his family. Thereupon, Lakha Singh fired two shots from his gun hitting Mohan Singh on the back of his right shoulder. Consequently, Mohan Singh fell on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, Karanvir Singh gave two blows with dang on his forehead and right leg. Ajit Singh gave two blows with dang to Lakha Singh which had hit him on the right side of his shoulder. Janakvir Singh gave a kirpan blow to Santosh Kaur hitting her near her right ear. Karanvir Singh gave a dang blow to Santosh Kaur on her right shoulder. Hardev Singh gave two blows with his sword to Jaswant Singh hitting him on his head and right shoulder. Ajit Singh gave two dang blows to Jaswant Singh hitting him on his right leg and right arm. Karanvir Singh then gave two dang blows to Manjit Singh hitting him on his back. Ajit Singh gave two blows with his dang hitting Manjit Singh on his right shoulder and back. On alarm being raised by the complainant and other persons on her side, the accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons. The injured were brought to the hospital by the complainant party.

Harcharan Singh, A.S.I. reached the hospital. On his application, Mohan Singh, Santosh Kaur and Jaswant Singh were declared unfit to make statement. However, the statement of Gurdeep Kaur, complainant was recorded on 11.3.1997 itself and was forwarded to the police station on which formal F.I.R. was recorded. The necessary investigation was done and challan was presented for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 307, 324,323,325 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

On the other hand, the version of the occurrence coming from Lakha Singh is that he had been Sarpanch of village Dostpur. On 11.3.1997, at about 8.00 A.M., he was returning home after getting the work for levelling of the land commenced. When he was in front of the shop of one Des Raj, he met Sukhdev Singh, Des Raj, Joginder Singh, Gurdip Singh and others and started talking with them. They were talking about the false promises held by the government. In the meanwhile, Manjit Singh and Sewa Singh came there. They started uttering some unsavoury words about Lakha Singh and his family. Lakha Singh asked Manjit Singh and Sewa Singh not to talk in those terms. They, however, got enraged. They removed the turban of Lakha Singh and ran away from the spot. When Lakha Singh was returning home and was near the flour mill of one Ashok Kumar, he was way-laid by the accused party who were armed with weapons. According to him, Mohan Singh gave a kirpan blow on the left side of his head. Jaswant Singh is said to have given a kirpan blow to the complainant which had hit him on his right leg. Mohan Singh gave another kirpan blow on the back side of the left shoulder of the complainant. Jaswant Singh gave another kirpan blow on the right shoulder of the complainant. Gurdip Kaur picked up a brick bat and threw the same upon the complainant which had hit him on the left flank and left ankle. Kartar Kaur gave two blows with dang on the right wrist and back side of the shoulder of the complainant. Jaswant Singh gave another kirpan blow on the right leg of the complainant. In the meanwhile, Karanvir Singh, Ajit Singh, Dalbir Kaur and Simmerjit Kaur also reached the spot and tried to rescue the complainant from the hands of the accused. Bachno, accused gave a dang blow to Simmerjit Kaur on her forehead and another blow on her left leg. Kartar Kaur gave two blows to Ajit Singh hitting him on the back of his right shoulder and right buttock. Sewa Singh, accused gave two blows with dattar to Karanvir Singh on his left shoulder and left elbow. Kartar Kaur also gave two blows hitting him on his left arm. In the meanwhile, Dalbir Kaur wife of the complainant came there and fired one gunshot in defence which had hit Mohan Singh whereafter the accused ran away. The injured were brought to the hospital where they were medico-legally examined. Statement of Lakha Singh was recorded on 12.7.1997. Statements of other injured witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested and weapons used in the occurrence were recovered. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

The case registered for an offence punishable, inter-alia, u/s 307 of the I.P.C. and this case were based on cross versions of the same occurrence and so, the two cases were committed to the court of session. After framing respective charges and the accused pleading not guilty to them, the prosecution evidence was taken. The accused have pleaded innocence and false implication.

Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the defence, learned trial court recorded judgments of acquittal dated 11.7.2001 in both the cases.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments of acquittal, the present appeals and revision petition have been brought.

Learned trial court has found that the injuries found on the person of the accused have not been explained in the two cases. He has also found that the parties were even not coming clear on the place of occurrence. In one case, the place of occurrence is claimed to be the house of Mohan Singh and in the other case, it is said to be the front of the flour mill of Ashok Kumar. No brick bats were found at any of the two places which were said to have been hurled.

The injuries of both the sides are substantial. They are not superficial or such which could be explained as having been caused by friendly hand or self suffered with a view to support a cross version of the occurrence. No attempt has been made on the part of either of the parties to explain the injuries of the other. Therefore, none of the parties made a clean breast of the occurrence. Both of them had been busy in concealing their part in the occurrence and highlighting the part played by the other. Similarly, the occurrence can be said to have taken place either at the house of Mohan Singh or in front of flour mill of Ashok Kumar. It cannot be said to have occurred at both the places. Learned trial court has failed to find any cogent evidence to establish the place of occurrence and noticing the discrepancies therein, has acquitted the accused.

In a case where injuries have been found on both sides, the genesis of occurrence is necessary to be found out. In the absence of genesis of occurrence, it cannot be held as to which party is the aggressor. When the court is not in a position to find out the aggressor, the available course to the court is of acquittal of both the parties. It is, moreover, not a case of free fight. In a case of free fight, the parties can be held guilty for their individual acts and punished accordingly. It is a case where the action has been initiated by one party and resisted by the other.

For the fact that injuries found on the accused side are not explained by the witnesses of the prosecution and that the place of occurrence was not established in the statements of the witnesses for want of any objective evidence recovered from the spot, learned trial court has rightly held that the parties have concealed the vital facts regarding genesis of occurrence and the place of occurrence and, therefore, the other party could not be convicted.

In these circumstances, we find no perversity in the reasoning adopted by learned trial court in its judgment acquitting both the parties. Therefore, finding no merit in the appeals and the revision petition, they are dismissed.